@DennyDoyle'sBoil I don’t think you need to divine the intent of the rule to determine that a notecard is not a “foreign substance” as it is used in the rules, i.e., a substance to be applied to the ball for purposes of giving the pitcher an edge. The best (only?) evidence of intent is the expression of intent as found in the language of the rules. As noted up thread, as used in the rules, the intent is to bar the application of foreign substances to the ball.
Within the rules, can you honestly argue for any reasonable interpretation, as they are written and in context, that a notecard is a foreign substance? If not then there is no credible argument here. It’s just an umpire being the show. This time it was harmless, I guess. But umpires aren’t common law trial court judges. Joe West doesn’t need to be creating test cases for appellate review.
Moreover, the implicit (or explicit) value underlying your view is that nobody should try to do things differently within the rules of the game—or nothing that offends Joe West’s sensibilities I guess—lest the umpire decide they’re going too far and make up a review to bar it. This creates a presumption of invalidity to innovation, such that if we can torture the rules one way or another to come up with a way of denying it, the umpire should do so. That’s lame—and not a good way of applying the rules. Why not let team object to innovation if they find it to be a problem? Or propose a rule to address it. This guy—and apparently at least one other—have been carrying cards all season with nary a peep. So be it. It’s not a foreign substance. It may be something else baseball wants to ban, but it’s not a foreign substance.